Fluff accuracy versus Game playability

[Amendil]

Hello all, my fellow Asur enthusiasts.

I am here to mention/ bring up something we all already know, and have talked about before.

According to fluff, we are some of the most lethal races out there, sometimes arrogant and pompous but utterly lethal. Even our core troops are supposed to be some of the best. Now, I'm not asking for higher toughness, but aren't elves supposed to be quite a bit stronger than humans by default?

Aren't our archers some of the best in the world? Our bows some of the most efficient?

How come we don't have plate armour when half our models carry it? Why is a chaos warrior so lethal compared to us?

Then I think about playability and it makes sense... but it's a shame.

[Dalamar]

Elves have WS4 by default, most of the races out there are WS3, there's your combat superiority.
Elves are also I5 while most enemies are I3 or I4, there's your speed.

Elves have never been stronger than other races, or tougher, but always more skilled. The skill stats are WS, BS and I (arguably A as well) and in those elves excel

It's a shame that game mechanics value T and S more though.

[Amendil]

precisely. Now our spearmen are relegated to goblin and skeleton duty unless they are mind razored. Maybe i am complaining too much for no reason, but I get attached to "my army" and seeing the ranks get scythed down upsets me.

[Son of Nagarythe]

I think the current rules actually give a good representation on Elven Skill. Our base str and toughness should be quite low, we are frail but deadly. Our High WS/BS and I are where it is at. And do not forget our base movement of 5 and our high base LD, this is nothing to sneeze at. Combine this with ASF and Martial Prowes and we have nothing to complain.

I am not saying our archers or spearmen are the bomb, but then again, they shouldn't be. They are our core and as it stands you can pit our core against many other core units without Mindrazering them.

D...

[Prince of Spires]

On the one hand, you are correct, but the issue is that as far as combat potential goes (and thus skill for a spearman) S is valued a lot more then WS.

The 2 reasons here are
- the difference between the to hit and to wound charts: The to hit chart stops at 3+ compared to 2+. And +1 S = +1 to hit while ws 3 = ws4 except vs ws 4 or very high ws.
- armour saves are modified by S but not by WS. This means that +1 S has a double bonus. +1 to hit and -1 to armour save.

Result is that I would much rather have +1S then +1WS. If the to Hit chart matched the to wound one it would already be a lot better. As it is now, the difference between WS3 and WS4 is negligible in game terms.

Rod

[Amendil]

That is a good way of putting it. Weapon Skill. What does that mean? The Skill one has with a weapon. Was it not 7th edition Swordmasters lore that said swordmasters trained for centuries compared to the "champions" of other races? Our citizen levy may not train day and night but they ARE more skilled in fluff terms (much more than the core of other armies) and yet.. it makes little impact on gameplay.

[Prince of Spires]

I find SM a good example of how strange the to hit table is. Yes, they hit almost everyone on a 3+. But there is no difference for them hitting something WS5 or WS1. And everyone except for the crappiest troops still hit them on 4+. How many things in the game are actually WS2? You're down to skaven slaves and the like.

Also, there is no difference between WS5 and WS6 in terms of hitting or getting hit, except against WS 5 troops.

Rpd

[Son of Nagarythe]

I do understand the limitations the to hit chart has in compairing with the to wound chart and I do agree in general, but let us not forget that all our Elves also have ASF and Martial Prowess. Meaning we strike before the enemy and due to our high initiative get to reroll that 3+ (w4 vs ws3 does matter in that regard). On top of this we strike with an extra rank. In my opinion (again, talking core units here) this reflects our skill at arms about as well as the current rules can give us.

I do agree that defensively WS is somewhat lackluster. Needing more then double your oponents WS in order to be hit on a 5+ could be made different. Especially our more expensive infantry such as swordmasters really lack in defending themselves with their skill.

Further, unlike in 6th and 7th edition, now in 8th our initiative really matters.

As a long time dark Elf and High Elf player I am just really hooked on the fluff of our low Str and T. we do hit a lot, a damn lot, in shooting as well as combat, it is harder for us to wound though. So I,m not saying it is all perfect, but under the current ruleset I think they got it pretty right.

D...

[Dalamar]

Make both to hit and to wound tables equal (make them look the same as the to hit table since I'm not a fan of combat where 15 models die on one side. The less models actually die, the more important SCR becomes, the more important flanking and tactics become)

Then make WS and S have the same effect on armor saves. Either by skill or through sheer brute power, you manage to overcome the enemy's protections. Of course you'd use one or the other, whichever is better, and not stack them together.

That way our WS7 but S4 characters would suddenly be able to pick weapons other than +Strength

[Prince of Spires]

Then make WS and S have the same effect on armor saves. Either by skill or through sheer brute power, you manage to overcome the enemy's protections. Of course you'd use one or the other, whichever is better, and not stack them together.

That way our WS7 but S4 characters would suddenly be able to pick weapons other than +Strength

I actually like this suggestion. Though I can see how it can quickly go overboard, since ws 6 is a bit more common then s6. Perhaps make it so that WS armour modifiers start at ws5 instead of ws4. But it would be awsome to give our character a +3 attacks sword and actually do something with it.

Rod

[lordoftheshadows]

Then make WS and S have the same effect on armor saves. Either by skill or through sheer brute power, you manage to overcome the enemy's protections. Of course you'd use one or the other, whichever is better, and not stack them together.

That way our WS7 but S4 characters would suddenly be able to pick weapons other than +Strength

I actually like this suggestion. Though I can see how it can quickly go overboard, since ws 6 is a bit more common then s6. Perhaps make it so that WS armour modifiers start at ws5 instead of ws4. But it would be awsome to give our character a +3 attacks sword and actually do something with it.

Rod

This would be a very fun suggestion. I mentioned it a while ago for our spears to help them fight (7th).

This would make our army better equipped to deal with high armor save units without needing metal.

Also Speed of light would become a poor man's mindrazor.

[Dalamar]

It would somewhat devalue armor, but is that a bad thing? Most troops are WS3 or WS4 with a few excsptions with WS5. I think it's actually easier to get S6 on a unit (white lions or execs) tha WS6 (I actually don't know any units with WS6).

Characters are another matter but that would only open up other options as farb as weapons go (I never take a weapon that doesn't increase S in some way on my characters because S4 simply doesn't cut it in a world of T6 monsters and 1+ cavalry.)

[Shadeseraph]

Then make WS and S have the same effect on armor saves. Either by skill or through sheer brute power, you manage to overcome the enemy's protections. Of course you'd use one or the other, whichever is better, and not stack them together.

That way our WS7 but S4 characters would suddenly be able to pick weapons other than +Strength

I actually like this suggestion. Though I can see how it can quickly go overboard, since ws 6 is a bit more common then s6. Perhaps make it so that WS armour modifiers start at ws5 instead of ws4. But it would be awsome to give our character a +3 attacks sword and actually do something with it.

Rod

Maybe count the difference in WS? Yes, it's a bit more complex, but it makes sense, and means the more expensive heavy cavalry more or less keep their survavility intact against lesser foes while the cheaper one (such as empire knights) suffers a bit.

[Domine Nox]

But Weapon Skill is not a representation of your ability to get through armor... I see the complaints of people feeling the army is not "elite enough" but it all comes down to game balance. Look at 40k for the prime example of this. Space Marines are supposed to be able to drop 10 people to the ground and take out Imperial Guard Regiments. Is this the case on table top? No because it wouldn't be fair. Same goes here.

The Elves are superior, this is portrayed well without being game broken. Can an Elf easily dispatch a man? Yes, in both fluff and in the rules. Heck a Swordmaster can even go toe to toe with an Empire Lord with neither one having the edge, and the Swordmaster is 50pts cheaper? Maybe more, not looking at the army book. Plus the Swordmaster is going first with a weapon that increases his S by 2? I think that's a pretty accurate description of his skill. Regular Elves having WS4, while not a tremendous difference, and brings the complaint of enemies hit them back on 4s is true, but by the same token the Elf is hitting 16% MORE often than the human. Look at anything you can do and imagine if somebody could do it almost 20% better, they would be noticeably better than you at it.

[Prince of Spires]

But Weapon Skill is not a representation of your ability to get through armor...

Actually, from a historical point of view I would say that it is. A lot of historical armour is pretty resilient against brute force. But it is very vulnerable in specific spots (mainly the moving parts, so joints etc). So a skilled swordsman would have a much higher chance of getting through armour then a strong one.

Rod

[Domine Nox]

Actually, from a historical point of view I would say that it is. A lot of historical armour is pretty resilient against brute force

Historical Armor was resilient against weapon types. Piercing weapons defeated chainmail better than cutting weapons. Maces and flails defeated platemail better than blades. If you try to get through Platemail with a 2 handed sword, skill isn't going to help you very much. But somebody significantly stronger is going to do more physical damage. A skilled fighter can get AROUND armor, but a stronger one is always going to be better at getting through it. And unless you are insanely better than your opponent finding a weak spot in the middle of a grand melee is not going to happen. Because people have to remember warhammer is not duels or squared off fights. It looks like this (sorry couldn't find an embed option)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJVsS-vIDdc

And in this type of a situation strength counts for infinitely more than skill.

[Prince of Spires]

And in this type of a situation strength counts for infinitely more than skill.

But that assumes a "charge forward and the side with the biggest numbers wins" kind of army. In that case, yes, strength and numbers is all that matters.

But there is another kind of army, which wins by using superior tactics, equipment etc. Think Romans or Alexander the Great. How is it that Alexander could beat armies often more then double his own? Same goes for the Romans. It's this kind of fighting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLXji8leIGg. And weapon skill matters a lot more there then does strength.

Rod

[Domine Nox]

If you took the roman out of his formation the Gaul or Visigoth would be on pretty even ground. The formation is helping them there, and organization. Their not doing any more damage because of their formation. They aren't overcoming armor, they are merely suffering less losses because of a controlled formation and better armor. But going to the Strength thing the Spartans and Greeks who used that formation and tactic before the Romans were STRONG, they would go out and form up against trees and the formation would push together against the tree until they uprooted it, and that trained them to stand strong against enemy charges and hold.

But there is another kind of army, which wins by using superior tactics, equipment etc. Think Romans or Alexander the Great. How is it that Alexander could beat armies often more then double his own? Same goes for the Romans.

And this goes back to why are the stats a big deal? Since the High Elf army still can win with tactics, and equipment, and defeat armies. So it's accurate then. Also the Alexander the Great reference, he didn't use great tactics. Most of his victories were him suicidally charging forward and taking out the enemy king at great personal risk. He accomplished a lot, but he was not a ground breaking tactician. If we take into account Tactics, Positioning, Equipment, then the whole Fluff accuracy is spot on, because I see the better led army win almost every time (There are those moments when fate kicks you in the unmentionables).

[Nightwing]

I like the idea of the "to hit" chart being the same as the "to wound" chart. I can't see why this wouldn't be the case. Would WS be that over powered? I don't think high WS should modify armour as suggested earlier, but if you have higher WS you should be harder to hit. You shouldn't need to be more than double the opponents WS before the to hit roll is modified. WS is defensive aswell as offensive. Having a high WS would mean you are better at blocking, parrying and ripostes.

[Domine Nox]

This I can get behind. Or even make a higher WS allows for a Parry Save in lieu of the current parry save rules. So a 1 better WS gets a 6+, 2 better a 5+ with it maxing out at 3+. I could definitely dig that.

[daid13]

The brainy Macedonian was Philip he set it up and after he died Alexander went on his conquest spree.

[Amendil]

Actually, from a historical point of view I would say that it is. A lot of historical armour is pretty resilient against brute force

Historical Armor was resilient against weapon types. Piercing weapons defeated chainmail better than cutting weapons. Maces and flails defeated platemail better than blades. If you try to get through Platemail with a 2 handed sword, skill isn't going to help you very much. But somebody significantly stronger is going to do more physical damage. A skilled fighter can get AROUND armor, but a stronger one is always going to be better at getting through it. And unless you are insanely better than your opponent finding a weak spot in the middle of a grand melee is not going to happen. Because people have to remember warhammer is not duels or squared off fights. It looks like this (sorry couldn't find an embed option)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJVsS-vIDdc

And in this type of a situation strength counts for infinitely more than skill.

It seems you are playing devil's advocate a little bit. You almost undid yourself when it came to why High elves should be more lethal because of weapon skill.

you said, " unless you are insanely better than your opponent finding a weak spot in the middle of a grand melee is not going to happen. Because people have to remember warhammer is not duels or squared off fights.

That is EXACTLY what high elves are and do.

[Rajmahal]

I remember this debate back in 5th edition ... seems the whole thing hasn't changed too much since then. To me, the whole "to wound" roll was unnecessary. It implied that an unarmoured creature could be hit with a medieval weapon (sword, mace, etc.) and somehow not be affected. Isn't that kind of silly? I mean, if the human / elf / orc is tough, then that would be reflected in its armour save ... why would sword strikes somehow bounce off their skin? If a creature is hard to kill (requiring several stabs / hits to take down), it should have extra wounds. If a creature has thick skin / bone plates covering it ... it should have a good armour save. Why exactly would an orc get to ignore 2 out of 3 successful sword strikes on its unarmoured flesh? The whole thing makes no sense at all when you think about it.

In the game I currently play (Armies of Arcana), there is no wounding roll. Simply roll to hit and if you hit, the target takes an armour / defence save (modified by the attack's strength modifier). If it passes, no wound ... if it fails, it takes a wound. In that game, High Elves have both high strength and good defence since they're running around in heavy armour and shield (and the elites have full plate). Another benefit of removing the wounding roll entirely is that it speeds up the game nicely as it cuts down on unnecessary rolls. Generally combats are more bloody but units tend to start bigger so it works out really well. I haven't seen the newest warhammer rules, but from this discussion it sounds like the same issue around strength / toughness being better than weapon skill is still there.

[cptcosmic]

this problem exists for ages.

few facts:
HE consisted mostly out of spearmen and archers before units like PG, WL and SM came to existance, yet they were able to fight off daemon armies that were more numerous.

a single spearmen regiment supported by bolts shooting from the cities walls was able to hold against a whole goblin army 300 style. when the real HE army came to help they found dead goblins and the last few spearmen standing infront of the city entry waiting to stop whatever evil comes in their direction.

HE learned magic from the old ones

their smiths make weapons that are, atleast accoring to lore one of the best. the armor is as sturdy as equivalents of other races but lighter.



and yet a HE mage is barely better than an empire wizard. a HE sword isnt more effective than a wooden stick from a zombie. spearmen mithral armor is not better than some leather carried by rats. and despite the fact that the HE smiths are one of the best and live for hundreds of years, they somehow fail to make an equivalent to plate armor for their own elite infantry, something a human peasant manages to do.

also GW missed alot of opportunities in the current book to make HE truly unique and effective elite army because they wanted to sell new shiny monsters. the current book would be perfect with only a few changes on some of the units.

[Prince of Spires]

few facts:

The problem with the fluff facts about troops is that they are not so much facts as that they are propaganda.

After all, according to the fluff, the greatest warriors in the world are TK tomb guard. None can stand before them! Except of course for our own Swordmasters, who can with just a small unit stop a whole army. But they in turn are stomped into the ground by The unstopable mass of Ogre bulls, who are themselves swarmed in a tide of greenskins etc etc...

Each race has the best infantry unit in the world, the best equipment, the best mages. It's all just propaganda. After all, no-one wants their elite troops to be labeled "they were the most elite of army X, which is actually pretty mediocre compared to pretty much every other core unit out there. They tend to be overrun at any given time and we're wondering why they haven't become extinct yet"...

Exception probably being if you play skaven or goblins of course...

Rod

[cptcosmic]

sure, the fluff is reinforced by exaggerations but some fluff is neutral and there is nonpropaganda lore inbweteen too

HE learned magic from the old ones and showed the humans how to do it... centuries of magical studies ahead but the HE mage is not much better than an empire wizard. why does the HE fail to make a plate armor equivalent out of mithral, I guess it is better to run around in paper for a dying race. not to mention, a wooden stick used by a zombie is as good as a HE weapon. chracians, supposed to be badass animal tamers, yet empire can ride demigryphs...

[Domine Nox]

centuries of magical studies ahead but the HE mage is not much better than an empire wizard.

I don't know you compare Soul Quench to say Fireball, and compare that the HE mage is +5 to cast Soul Quench, and the Empire Wizard is +4 to cast Fireball, and it seems the HE is out in front. Add into that the Empire Wizard can buy a 70pt magic item to get on equal footing casting wise, but for 55pts we get re-rolls which again puts us ahead. I don't think High Elves are all that gimped. In every game I've played since coming back to Warhammer High Elves have pretty steadily controlled the magic phase (granted I did not face Lizardmen or VC in my games).

why does the HE fail to make a plate armor equivalent out of mithral

By this I suppose you mean the Empire full plate? Since Heavy armor is in essence plate armor and the HE do have that. But HE don't want super heavy suits of armor, they let magic do the heavy lifting there, hence why there are magic armors that are 2+ or grant ward saves, or both. They don't forge the way Dwarves do to make the most hardened thing possible, they make practical things and movement is their strength, Ithilmar is light, but if you try to do too much with it undoubtedly it will get in the way.

a wooden stick used by a zombie is as good as a HE weapon.

A weapon is a weapon. The Elves or Dwarves are equipped with what people crank out, not masterfully crafted weapons of peerless skill from the greatest weaponsmiths of their races. If you went and got a bare bones sword that was functional and somebody else had a masterfully crafted Toledo steel sword that took painstaking time to perfect, they would kill things equally well.

chracians, supposed to be badass animal tamers, yet empire can ride demigryphs

The Chracians are badass animal tamers? "Not all white lions are killed out of hand. The High Elves take no joy in needless slaughter, and often stay their blades should cubs be discovered." They don't tame animals. They KILL animals, the only ones they tame are the cubs they abduct when they kill the parents. Chracians are about proving their strength through hunting, not making nice. The Empire in contrast sends men out ritualistically to go and capture the beasts, CAPTURE! ON PURPOSE! Many of them die doing so, but that's why units are small.

[cptcosmic]

The difference between an empire wizard and he mage is small.you could slap the book on an empire wizard with any of the brb loresand their casting power do not differ. And the empire wizard is alot cheaper additionally the +1 to high (a very situational lore) is overrated. We are talking about lore vs ingame effectiveness, and the way how dice are generated means that everyone is able to get a spell off. The loremaster is only lvl2 yet he has no issues to force spells through, even without the book. With 7 dice on averave you can attempt to cast 3 spells and the enemy will most likely only stop 2. Yes magic can do some lifting but it works the same way for everyone, except dwarfs.

I am also sure that 6th or 7th edi book described chracians as great tamers and hunters